Ragins_Mentor-functions-and-outcomes

Journal of Applied Psychology 1999, Vol 84, No 4, 529-550 Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc 0021-9010/99/S3.00 Mentor Functions and Outcomes: A Comparison of Men and Women in Formal and Informal Mentoring Relationships Belle Rose Ragins John L Cotton University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee Marquette University The authors examined the effects of the type of mentoring relationship and the gender composition of the relationship on mentoring functions and career outcomes reported by 352 female and 257 male proteges Proteges of informal mentors viewed their mentors as more effective and received greater compensation than proteges of formal mentors Proteges with informal mentors also received more career outcomes than nonmentored individuals, but no significant differences were found between nonmentored and formally mentored individuals The gender composition of the relationship affected mentoring functions and outcomes, and protege gender interacted with the type of relationship to affect mentoring functions Mentoring relationships are a critical career resource for employees in organizations Mentors are individuals with advanced experience and knowledge who are committed to providing upward support and mobility to their protege's careers (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985a) Mentors help their proteges by providing two general types of behaviors or functions: career development functions, which facilitate the protege's advancement in the organization, and psychosocial functions, which contribute to the protege's personal growth and professional development (Kram, 1985a) The presence of a mentor is associated with an array of positive career outcomes: Proteges receive more promotions (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Scandura, 1992), have higher incomes (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991), and report more mobility (Scandura, 1992) and career satisfaction (Fagenson, 1989) than nonproteges Mentoring has also been found to have a positive impact on organizational socialization (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1993), job satisfaction (Koberg, Boss, Chappell, & Ringer, 1994), and reduced turnover intentions (Viator & Scandura, 1991) Many organizations recognize the important benefits of mentoring and have attempted to replicate informal mentoring relationships by creating formal mentoring programs (Burke & McKeen, 1989; Geiger-DuMond & Boyle, 1995; Zey, 1985) One key difference between formal and informal mentoring relationships is that informal mentoring relationships develop spontaneously, whereas formal mentoring relationships develop with organizational assistance or intervention—usually in the form of voluntary assignment or matching of mentors and proteges A second distinction is that formal relationships are usually of much shorter duration than informal relationships (Douglas, 1997) Although it is clear that formal and informal mentoring relationships differ in how they are formed and the length of the relationship, there is little research on whether formal and informal relationships differ in the functions mentors provide or the career outcomes proteges obtain during the mentoring relationship Many organizations simply assume that formal relationships are as effective as informal relationships and implicitly offer their employees formal relationships as a substitute for informal mentoring relationships (Keele, Buckner, & Bushnell, 1987; Kram & Bragar, 1992) Moreover, formal mentoring programs are being implemented across the nation: It is estimated that a third of the nation's major companies have a formal mentoring program (Bragg, 1989), and this figure is expected to continue to increase (Murray, 1991) These formal mentoring programs are being developed without the benefit or guidance of empirical research This situation has particular relevance for women, who face greater barriers to developing informal mentoring relationships than men (Ragins & Cotton, 1991) and may therefore be more likely to seek formal relationships as a Belle Rose Ragins, School of Business Administration, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee; John L Cotton, Department of Management, Marquette University An earlier version of this article was presented at the meeting of the National Academy of Management, August 1998, San Diego, California, and received the Best Applied Paper Award in the Careers Division This study was funded by a 1991 grant from the Women's Bureau of the U.S Department of Labor Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Belle Rose Ragins, School of Business Administration, P.O Box 742, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Electronic mail may be sent to Ragins@uwm.edu 529 530 RAGINS AND COTTON substitute for informal mentoring relationships Additionally, many organizations target women for formal mentoring programs in the attempt to help them advance in the organization and break through the "glass ceiling" (Catalyst, 1993; Kerry, 1994; Kram & Hall, 1996; Scott, 1992) However, these organizations may not be helping their female employees if formal mentors are less effective than informal mentors Accordingly, the first and primary purpose of this study is to compare the mentoring functions and career outcomes associated with formal and informal mentoring relationships A second purpose of this study is to understand whether the gender composition of the relationship affects the relationship's functions and outcomes and whether this effect varies by the type of mentoring relationship As discussed earlier, many organizations develop formal mentoring programs that focus either exclusively or primarily on their female employees The assignment of a male or female mentor may produce different outcomes from the relationship (Ragins, 1989) and may therefore be an important factor to consider in the development of a formal mentoring program This study's objective, therefore, is to provide timely information for organizations seeking to develop mentoring programs and to contribute to the knowledge base necessary for emerging mentorship theory Literature Review and Hypotheses Mentor Functions According to Kram's mentor role theory (1985a), mentors can provide two broad categories of mentor functions First, they provide career development functions, which help proteges learn the ropes and facilitate the protege's advancement in the organization Kram (1985a) theorized that mentors can provide five specific career development functions: sponsoring promotions and lateral moves (sponsorship); coaching the protege (coaching); protecting the protege from adverse forces (protection); providing challenging assignments (challenging assignments); and increasing the protege's exposure and visibility (exposure) Psychosocial functions compose the second broad category of mentor functions These behaviors address interpersonal aspects of the mentoring relationship and enhance the protege's sense of competence, self-efficacy, and professional and personal development Career development functions depend on the mentor's power and position in the organization, whereas psychosocial functions depend on the quality of the interpersonal relationship and the emotional bond that underlies the relationship Career development functions focus on the organization and the protege's career, whereas psychosocial functions affect the protege on a more personal level and extend to other spheres of life, such as the protege's personal development Kram (1985a) theorized that mentors may provide four psychosocial functions: helping the protege develop a sense of professional self (acceptance and confirmation), providing problem-solving and a sounding board (counseling), giving respect and support (friendship), and providing identification and role modeling (role modeling) It is important to note that mentoring is not an all or none phenomenon; a given mentor may provide all of just some of these functions Formal and Informal Mentoring Relationships There are distinct differences between formal and informal mentoring relationships that may impact the mentor's functions and the career outcomes of the relationship These differences involve the way the relationship is initiated, the structure of the relationship, and the processes involved in the relationship Initiation of relationship Informal mentoring relationships develop on the basis of mutual identification and the fulfillment of career needs Mentors select proteges who are viewed as younger versions of themselves, and the relationship provides mentors with a sense of generativity, or contribution to future generations (Erikson, 1963) Mentors are usually in mid-career stages that involve reassessment of life accomplishments (Erikson, 1963; Kram, 1985a; Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978), and generativity helps mentors avoid stagnation and allows them to progress to the next life stage Proteges select mentors who are viewed as role models Proteges are in early career stages that involve developing a sense of professional identity, and role modeling helps proteges advance through this stage This mutual identification leads to the often-cited intensity of the informal relationship and the parallels drawn between mentoring and parent-child relationships Informal mentoring relationships also develop on the basis of perceived competence and interpersonal comfort (Allen, Poteet, & Burroughs, 1997; Kalbfleisch & Davies, 1993; Kram, 1983, 1985a; Olian, Carroll, & Giannantonio, 1993; Olian, Carroll, Giannontonio, & Feren, 1988) Mentors tend to select high-performing proteges who are considered rising stars or even diamonds in the rough Similarly, proteges select mentors with desired expertise Members of informal mentoring relationships select partners they enjoy working with and often report a mutual attraction or chemistry that sparks the development of the relationship (Kram, 1983, 1985a) In contrast, members of formal mentoring relationships are typically assigned to one another by a program coordinator on the basis of application forms submitted by the potential mentor and protege (Douglas, 1997; Gaskill, 1993; Murray, 1991) In many cases, the mentor and protege not even meet until after the match has been made Thus, in contrast to informal relationships, identification, role modeling, and interpersonal comfort not play a role in the MENTOR FUNCTIONS AND OUTCOMES development of formal relationships It is therefore reasonable to expect that the psychosocial functions of role modeling, friendship, and counseling may be less in formal than informal mentoring relationships Formal mentoring relationships are also less likely to be founded on mutual perceptions of competency and respect Formal mentors are selected on the basis of their competency, but this judgment is made by the program coordinator rather than the protege (Gaskill, 1993; Murray, 1991; Phillips-Jones, 1983) Additionally, formal mentors may view their proteges as at-risk performers who enter the program because they need remedial attention (Ragins, 1997a) It is reasonable to expect that the acceptance and confirmation mentor functions, which are founded on respect and perceived competency, will be less in formal than informal mentoring relationships Structure of relationship Formal and informal mentoring relationships differ in the length and formality in the relationship Informal relationships last between and years (Kram, 1985a), whereas formal relationships are usually contracted to last between months and year (Murray, 1991; Zey, 1985) Members of informal relationships meet when desired, but the mode, frequency, and location of contact for formal relationships are often specified in a contract signed by both parties (Murray, 1991; Zey, 1985) The goals of formal relationships are specified at the start of the relationship and are screened by the program coordinator In contrast, the goals of informal relationships evolve over time and adapt to the career needs of the individuals There are three potential outcomes of these different structures First, informal mentoring relationships have more time to build psychosocial and career development functions Mentoring may not have an immediate effect on career outcomes; it may take time for the benefits of mentoring to materialize Kram (1985a) theorized that the benefits of mentoring extend beyond the duration of the relationship, and Chao (1997) found that the advantages of being mentored continue over time This time-lag effect is particularly relevant when considering promotions and compensation, which usually change only once a year Therefore, informal mentors' career interventions may have more time to reach fruition than formal mentors' career interventions Second, proteges in formal relationships may perceive that their mentors spend time with them because of a commitment to the mentoring program and the organization, rather than because of personal commitment to the protege, or because the mentor believes in the protege's potential Both parties recognize that the relationship is short-term and that the mentor may be assigned to another protege after the relationship is over These factors may restrict the development of trust and emotional closeness in the relationship and the provision of psychosocial functions Third, formal relationships are contracted to focus on career goals that are short-term and relate to the protege's 531 current position (Geiger-DuMond & Boyle, 1995; Gray, 1988; Murray, 1991) In contrast, informal mentors are concerned with the long-term career needs of their proteges; in some cases the protege's needs may take precedence over the needs of the organization, and the mentor may recommend that the protege move to another organization Informal mentoring relationships are therefore more aligned with the view that careers no longer unfold within a single organization but instead become "boundaryless" in spanning many different organizational settings (cf Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Hall & Mirvis, 1996) Processes in relationship There are four additional processes that may lead to different functions in formal and informal mentoring relationships First, formal mentors may be less motivated to be in the relationship than informal mentors (Ragins & Cotton, 1991) As discussed earlier, formal mentors may not identify with their proteges In addition, formal mentors may enter the relationship to be good organizational citizens rather than because of their own developmental needs Although formal mentors may receive more organizational recognition than informal mentors, they may not be ready to be mentors, and they may be less likely to receive the internal rewards associated with mentoring (cf Ragins & Scandura, in press) It is therefore reasonable to expect that formal mentors may not be as motivated as informal mentors to provide career development and psychosocial functions Second, formal mentors may have less effective communication and coaching skills than informal mentors (Kram, 1985b, 1986) Proteges select informal mentors with strong communication and coaching skills (Kalbfleisch & Davies, 1993; Olian et al., 1988) Formal mentors may be viewed as having good communication skills by program coordinators, but if the protege does not share these perceptions, the relationship may become strained and less effective A third factor that may limit the effectiveness of formal mentoring relationships is that many programs match members from different departments or functional units in the attempt to avoid charges of favoritism (Douglas, 1997; Murray, 1991) This practice may impede the formal mentor's ability to intervene on the protege's behalf and provide exposure, protection, sponsorship, and challenging assignment functions Moreover, informal relationships often evolve on the basis of mutual interests, job functions, and career paths Formal mentors who are in different departments or functional areas than their proteges may also have different career paths and may therefore provide less effective career counseling and role modeling for their proteges Finally, because formal mentors are more visible than informal mentors, they may be more self-conscious about engaging in career development behaviors that may be construed as favoritism by others in the organization Informal mentors generally engage in such behaviors with impunity; informal mentors have been found to sponsor their 532 RAGINS AND COTTON proteges into upwardly mobile positions, give them challenging "stretch" assignments, and buffer them from adverse forces in the organization (Kram, 1983; Scandura, 1992) Because formal mentoring relationships are public relationships that are monitored by program coordinators, formal mentors may be less likely than informal mentors to intervene on their protege's behalf Review of Research As the above theoretical review indicates, formal mentors can be expected to provide less of each of the nine career development and psychosocial functions than informal mentors Only two studies directly investigated the relationship between type of mentor and mentor functions On the basis of existing theory, both studies proposed greater benefits for informal than formal mentoring relationships Although the results of these studies were complementary with existing theory, only partial support for theoretical predictions was found In a study of 212 informal and 53 formal proteges, Chao, Walz, and Gardner (1992) found that proteges in informal mentoring relationships reported more career development functions and higher salaries than proteges in formal relationships However, no support was found for their hypothesis that proteges in informal relationships would report more psychosocial functions than proteges in formal relationships Fagenson-Eland, Marks, and Amendola (1997) found that informal proteges reported more psychosocial benefits than formal proteges in their study of 16 informal and 30 formal proteges employed at two merging organizations However, informal and formal proteges did not significantly differ in reports of career development and role modeling functions These studies, although groundbreaking, used only the broad categories of mentoring functions and did not provide an in-depth investigation of the nine specific mentoring functions theorized by Kram (1985a) Chao et al, (1992) used Noe's (1988) 21-item mentor functions instrument, which measures Kram's (1985a) two broad categories of career development and psychosocial functions The career development scale consisted of items that measure the protection, challenging assignment, and exposure functions, but not include Kram's coaching and sponsorship functions Psychosocial functions were measured using a 14item scale that omitted the friendship function and included the coaching function The coaching function is a career development function (Kram, 1985a) but is loaded on the psychosocial factor in Noe's scale (Noe, 1988) The instrument is conceptually limited in that it does not allow for an analysis of the nine individual mentor functions because single items are used to measure many functions, and some functions are not represented in the instrument FagensonEland and her colleagues (1997) used the Scandura and Katerburg (1988) 18-item mentoring functions question- naire, which collapsed Kram's (1985a) nine mentor functions into three broad categories: career development, psychosocial, and role modeling However, like Noe's (1988) instrument, this instrument assesses only the broad categories of mentor functions and therefore does not allow for a full assessment of Kram's mentor role theory by investigating the effects of each of the nine individual mentor functions One objective of the present study, therefore, was to extend this prior research by providing a more fine-grained analysis of the relationship between type of mentor and each of Kram's (1985a) mentor roles Toward this aim, we used the Ragins and McFarlin (1990) 33-item mentor role instrument, which allows for a separate analysis of the effects of each of Kram's (1985a) nine mentor functions, as well as two additional functions Another objective of our study was to assess the relationship between formal and informal mentoring and career outcomes, such as promotion rate and compensation There has been a lack of research investigating these relationships As discussed earlier, Chao et al (1992) explored the relationship between the type of mentoring relationship and compensation She reported that individuals with informal mentors had greater compensation than individuals with formal mentors, but she did not investigate the relationship between type of mentor and promotion rate We would like to replicate and extend her study by investigating the relationship between formal and informal mentoring, compensation, and promotion Our study also attempts to follow Chao et al.'s (1992) lead in recognizing that the effects of mentoring on career outcomes may not be immediate, but may take place over time This is particularly relevant when investigating formal mentoring relationships As discussed earlier, because formal mentoring relationships usually last a year or less (Murray, 1991; Zey, 1985), static measures, although suitable for capturing current perceptions of the mentor's behaviors or functions, fall short of capturing the career outcomes of the relationship; the effects of a formal mentoring relationship may not be realized for or years following the relationship's termination Chao and her colleagues (1992) recognized this issue and wisely included duration of mentoring relationship as a control variable in their study They also tested for differences between proteges with current or recent mentors and proteges who had relationships that ended years prior to being surveyed They found no differences between these groups, but they made the valuable point that it is important to examine historical effects and control for the duration of the relationship when investigating the relationship between type of mentoring and career outcomes Toward that end, we controlled for the duration of mentoring relationship and included retrospective measures of the history of mentoring relationships in our analyses MENTOR FUNCTIONS AND OUTCOMES Hypotheses of Formal and Informal Mentoring Relationships On the basis of the theory and research reviewed above, we hypothesized that proteges in informal mentoring relationships would report that their mentors provide more career development and psychosocial functions than proteges in formal relationships Hypothesis 1: Proteges in informal mentoring relationships will report that their mentors provide more career development functions (sponsorship, coaching, protection, challenging assignments, exposure) than proteges in formal mentoring relationships Hypothesis 2: Proteges in informal mentoring relationships will report that their mentors provide more psychosocial functions (acceptance and confirmation, counseling, friendship, and role modeling) than proteges in formal mentoring relationships We also expected that informal proteges would report more overall satisfaction with the performance of their mentor than proteges in formal relationships Hypothesis 3: Proteges in informal mentoring relationships will report greater satisfaction with their mentors than proteges in formal mentoring relationships We also expected a positive relationship between the history of prior mentoring relationships and career outcomes In particular, proteges who had primarily informal relationships in the past should report more compensation and a higher promotion rate than proteges with a history of primarily formal relationships Hypothesis 4: Proteges with a history of informal mentoring relationships will receive more compensation and promotions than proteges with a history of formal relationships The next section explores the conjoint effects of the gender composition of the relationship and the type of mentor on mentor functions and career outcomes Gender Composition of Relationship Existing mentorship theory holds that the gender composition of the mentoring relationship is a critical factor affecting mentoring functions and outcomes (cf Ragins, 1997a) Ragins (1997a, 1997b) observed that social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978), the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971), and the relational demography perspective (Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992; Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989) all predict more perceived similarity, identification and rolemodeling in same-gender as compared with cross-gender relationships Carrying this logic to the mentoring arena, Ragins (1997a) predicted that psychosocial functions, which incorporate similarity, identification, and role mod- 533 eling, should also be stronger in same-gender as compared with cross-gender mentoring relationships Hypothesis 5: Proteges in same-gender relationships will report more psychosocial functions (acceptance and confirmation, counseling, friendship, and role modeling) than proteges in cross-gender mentoring relationships Ragins (1997a) also proposed that mentors' power in the organization influences their ability to provide their proteges with such career development functions as sponsoring their proteges to high-ranking positions, protecting them from adverse forces, and giving them needed exposure She proposed that because majority mentors (i.e., male mentors) generally have more power in organizations than minority mentors (i.e., female mentors), they should be better able to provide career development functions and organizational outcomes This proposition was partially supported in a recent study by Dreher and Cox (1996), which found that proteges with male mentors received greater compensation than proteges with female mentors However, their study did not investigate career development functions or promotion rates, or the impact of the history of mentoring relationships on compensation and promotion We therefore wanted to build on their study and test existing theory by proposing the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 6a: Proteges with male mentors will report more -career development functions (sponsorship, coaching, protection, challenging assignments, exposure) than proteges with female mentors Hypothesis 6b: Proteges with a history of male mentors will report more compensation and promotions than proteges with a history of female mentors Expanding on this framework, Ragins (1997a) proposed that compared with other gender combinations, male proteges with male mentors should receive the most benefits from the mentoring relationship; these proteges should be the most satisfied with their relationships and should receive more psychosocial and career development benefits from their relationships than any other gender combination Correspondingly, she proposed that relationships involving minority mentors (i.e., female mentors) and majority proteges (i.e., male proteges) should be the most limited in providing mentoring functions; they are limited in providing career development functions because of the female mentor's relative lack of power, and they are limited in providing psychosocial functions because the relationship is crossgender Existing theory (Kram, 1985a) and research (Chao et al., 1992) indicates that psychosocial and career development mentor functions are inter-related and may synergistically build on one another, thereby making the differences between these dyads even more salient (Ragins, 1997a) 534 RAGINS AND COTTON This theoretical perspective was tested by the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 7a: Male proteges with male mentors will report more career development and psychosocial functions and more satisfaction with their mentors than any other gender combination of mentoring relationship Hypothesis 7b: Male proteges with female mentors will report less career development and psychosocial functions and less satisfaction with their mentors than any other gender combination of mentoring relationship We also expected that male proteges who had primarily male mentors in the past would receive greater career outcomes than any other gender combination Similarly, male proteges with a history of primarily female mentors should report less career outcomes than any other gender combination These expectations are based on the theory discussed above (Ragins, 1997a), as well as on the finding of positive relationships between compensation and psychosocial and career development mentoring functions (Chao et al., 1992; Scandura, 1992) Hypothesis 8a: Male proteges with a history of male mentors will report greater compensation and promotion than any other gender combination Hypothesis 8b: Male proteges with a history of female mentors will report less compensation and promotion than any other gender combination Finally, we wanted to explore whether the gender composition of the relationship interacts with the type of relationship in influencing the mentoring relationship Because there was no theory or research to provide direction, we tested the following research question: Does the gender composition of the relationship moderate the relationship between type of mentoring (formal vs informal) and reports of mentor functions and satisfaction with the relationship? To date, only one study investigated the impact of gender composition of mentoring relationships on mentor functions, and there has been no research investigating the relationship between the historical composition of the relationship and career outcomes In a survey of 181 proteges in informal mentoring relationships, Ragins and McFarlin (1990) found that same-gender proteges reported engaging in more social activities with their mentors than crossgender proteges and that female proteges with female mentors reported more role modeling than any other gender combination However, one limitation of this study was that a restricted sample of female mentors prevented a comparative analysis of all four gender combinations Because this situation is relatively common in male-dominated organizations and occupations (Noe, 1988; Ragins, 1989), we obtained a sample of individuals from male-typed, femaletyped, and gender-integrated occupations to obtain adequate sample sizes for each of the four gender combinations of mentoring relationships In a related study, Ensher and Murphy (1997) examined the effects of race similarity among 104 minority students who were assigned to formal, same-gender mentoring relationships that lasted for weeks The researchers found that minority proteges assigned to same-race mentors reported more career development functions than minority proteges assigned to different race mentors but found no support for their prediction that psychosocial support would be greater among same-race mentors or that female mentors would provide more psychosocial support than male mentors However, because proteges were assigned to same-gender mentors, the researchers were unable to examine the effect of the gender composition of the relationship on mentoring functions In this study, we examined the effects of gender composition and the type of mentoring relationship on mentoring functions and outcomes We extended prior research and tested new theory by measuring specific mentor roles and by investigating the impact of history of mentoring relationships on career outcomes Method Procedure and Respondents Sampling procedure One goal of our study was to investigate the effects of the gender composition of the mentoring relationship on mentor functions and outcomes Because male-dominated occupations have a shortage of higher-ranking, female mentors (Ragins, 1989), and this study called for a sample of male proteges with female mentors, we obtained a sample of men and women in male-typed, female-typed, and gender-integrated occupations Three occupations were selected on the basis of labor statistics and research on occupational gender-typing (Beggs & Doolittle, 1993; U.S Department of Commerce, 1996): engineering (maledominated), social work (female-dominated), and journalism (gender-integrated) Formal mentoring programs are used in all three of these occupations (Paine, 1986; Smith, Chase, & Byrd, 1986; Taibbi, 1983) We obtained a national random sample by using mailing lists of national professional associations representing these three occupations To obtain a gender-balanced sample, equal numbers of male and female names were randomly selected from each mailing list A total of 3,000 surveys were mailed; 1,000 (500 to men, 500 to women) were sent to each of the three occupations Follow-up surveys and reminder letters were sent according to a modified version of the Dillman mail survey method (Dillman, 1978) A total of 1,258 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 42% Self-employed and retired employees were excluded from analyses Relatively complete data for analyses were available for 1,162 respondents Respondents Respondents consisted of 654 women and 500 men; respondents did not report their gender The occupational breakdown of the respondents consisted of 362 journalists (31.2%), 414 social workers (35.6%), and 386 engineers (33.2%) MENTOR FUNCTIONS AND OUTCOMES We used an established definition of mentor (Ragins, 1989) in our survey: "A mentor is generally defined as a higher ranking, influential individual in your work environment who has advanced experience and knowledge and is committed to providing upward mobility and support to your career Your mentor may or may not be in your organization and s/he may or may not be your immediate supervisor." Formal mentoring was defined as follows: "In order to assist individuals in their development and advancement, some organizations have established formal mentoring programs, where proteges and mentors are linked in some way This may be accomplished by assigning mentors or by just providing formal opportunities aimed at developing the relationship To recap: Formal mentoring relationships are developed with organizational assistance Informal mentoring relationships are developed spontaneously, without organizational assistance." To ensure that respondents had a clear understanding of the distinction between formal and informal mentors, we asked respondents to describe their formal mentoring program immediately following the question asking them to identify whether their mentor was formal or informal We also asked the respondents to describe the history of their mentoring relationships over the last 10 years, starting with their most recent mentor For each relationship, we asked the respondents to give information on the mentor's gender, the type of relationship (formal/informal), the mentor's position (supervisory/nonsupervisory), and the duration of the relationship On the basis of these definitions, 510 respondents (43.9%) reported having an informal mentor, 104 respondents (9%) reported having a formal mentor, and 548 (47.2%) did not have a mentor The final sample was composed of these 614 proteges, which consisted of 352 female proteges, 257 male proteges, and who did not report their gender Although men and women did not significantly differ in having a mentor, ) f ( l , N = 1,135) = 0.36, ns, men were nearly twice as likely to be in a formal mentoring relationship: 22% of the men reported currently being in a formal relationship, compared with 12% of the women in the sample, /(I, N = 608) = 10.39, p < 001 Men were also significantly more likely than women to have a history of formal mentoring relationships: 18.5% of the men reported having primarily formal mentors in their past, compared with 9.7% of the women, ^(l, N = 579) = 9.37, p < 01 One implication of these gender differences is that if the type of mentoring relationship does affect mentoring functions and outcomes as proposed, the type of mentoring relationship should be included as a control variable when testing the gender composition hypotheses The sample involved 348 (57.1%) individuals in same-gender relationships and 261 (42.9%) in cross-gender relationships A more fine-grained breakdown revealed 233 male proteges with male mentors, 115 female proteges with female mentors, 24 male proteges with female mentors, and 237 female proteges with male mentors The median length of the current mentoring relationship was 4.0 years, and the average length was 6.7 years The current mentoring relationship for male proteges was significantly longer than for female proteges, r(426) = —2.77, p < 01, indicating that this variable should also be used as a control variable in the analysis Fifty-three percent of the proteges reported that their mentors were also their supervisors, and there were no significant gender differences on this variable, x*(l,N = 611) = 1.06, ns The average age of the proteges was 46 years, and 92% were Cauca- 535 sian Most were married (70%) and had completed (63%) or pursued (12%) graduate degrees Measures History of mentoring relationships We asked our respondents to give information about each mentoring relationship they had over the last 10 years, as well as their current mentoring relationship They were asked to report whether their prior relationships were formal or informal, the gender of their mentors, their mentors' positions, and the duration of the relationships The history of prior relationship type was measured by dividing the number of prior relationships that involved formal mentors by the total number of prior formal and informal mentoring relationships Higher values therefore reflect a greater proportion of formal than informal mentoring relationships The history of prior gender of mentors was measured by dividing the number of prior relationships involving male mentors by the total number of relationships involving both male mentors and female mentors Higher values thus reflect a greater proportion of male than female mentors The history of relationships involving specific gender compositions was computed in a similar manner Mentor functions The Mentor Role Instrument (MRI) was used to measure mentor functions (Ragins & McFarlin, 1990) The 33-item instrument was developed via confirmatory factor analysis, and independently measures each of Kram's (1985a) nine mentor roles The instrument also assesses two additional psychosocial-related roles: parent and social interactions According to Kram (1985a), these roles may emerge in response to gender issues in mentoring relationships; proteges may seek to avoid sexual issues in cross-gender relationships by viewing their mentor as a parent figure or by avoiding informal, after-work social interactions The MRI has proven reliability and preliminary evidence of validity (Ragins & McFarlin, 1990) The 33-item instrument has items per mentor role and was measured on a 7-point Likert scale with responses ranging from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree) The instrument may be found in the Appendix The coefficient alphas for the eleven mentor roles ranged from 63 to 91 and are listed on the diagonal of the correlation matrix in Table Mentor satisfaction The protege's satisfaction with the mentor was measured by a 4-item scale The items, which are listed in the Appendix, used the same 7-point Likert scale used in the MRI The coefficient alpha for the satisfaction scale was 83 Career outcomes Promotion rate and compensation were used to measure mentor outcomes Using established definitions of promotions (cf Whitely et al., 1991), promotions were defined as involving two or more of the following criteria: significant increases in annual salary, significant increases in scope of responsibility, changes in job level or rank, or becoming eligible for bonuses, incentives or stock plans Given the above definition, respondents were asked how many promotions they received over the last 10 years Respondents were also asked to report their current annual compensation, which included salary, bonuses, commissions, stock options, and profit sharing Control variables Six variables that may be related to promotion rate and compensation were considered as potential covariates: organizational rank, organizational tenure, position tenure, number of career interruptions, education, and occupation (engi- 536 RAGINS AND COTTON NO CM O O O •> —> _ H C r - o o r - , oio o N o o i n v ? O - H — (Mf nNo>nco y D - ^ c I I NO —' -*t oo ooo o o c5 H \o O i —i — i CM CM c* —' O C3 O O O 00^ S O CM O —i O i C3 tn O "^ O in r*i c* O OC § cr> c*"i oo in -HO— c— ro o S - 22? S S — r- - ^1 «n ^ 1 _, o C ^-, I \ 1 CM O ON l.-f -"3- S>-c O ^ ^ s1 i s.,1 S" u c3 ^ u ag x "o E5 m o S ! ã" Ê 1 r- "ôs S1 1 So O •— QJ T ~ T 1 y -SJ •5 CM "z* —' w» " £ O °7 "o-n 7i 1' M S o H oo m oo \o -*f w O •* O CO \O CM —' C5 r- "* •} v -H -^ o r- c- > -H o O OC CO rru-iocNcNr-nm — m m ^ o o m c M —| O ON O O C r- ^-< ^ Cl O -^•^ w O w u IIj •""'>"» ex O ™ oo C a> o u 5*".c:«> IS £ c ^ S u 1i dI -CMm^J- «DNO r- O ^ S-° 11£5lll-